Razer decided to go with a dual-core Core i7 instead of a quad, a decision that makes sense given not only the smaller power envelope, but also because of the higher frequencies of the dual-core parts, which should result in better gaming performance. The only configuration of the Blade comes with the fastest dual-core part that Intel ships, the i7-2640M, which has a base clock speed of 2.8GHz and turbo clocks of 3.5GHz and 3.3GHz on one and two cores, respectively. 

At one point, Razer planned to ship the Blade with a 320GB 7200RPM drive. Thankfully they switched the platter out for the 256GB Lite-On SSD, because a system this expensive without a standard SSD would be a travesty. Razer has taken advantage of the fast SSD and tuned the Windows install for the fastest possible boot. And it’s pretty blazing—this is the only time I’ve ever seen a system finish booting Windows before the animation finishes. The quantitative representation of the word blazing? 15.6 seconds. It’s quick.

The general application performance is pretty solid and lands about where we expect—it won’t match the quad-core stuff in heavily mulithreaded workloads, but it’s faster than all the other dual-core parts. The SSD gives the Blade a huge boost in PCMark 7, though we’re not huge fans of putting a lot of weight on synthetic benchmarks like Futuremark’s various suites.

PCMark 7—PCMarks

PCMark 7—Lightweight

PCMark 7 - Productivity

PCMark 7 - Entertainment

PCMark 7 - Creativity

PCMark 7 - Computation

PCMark 7 - Storage

Cinebench R11.5 - Multi-Threaded Benchmark

x264 HD Benchmark—First Pass

x264 HD Benchmark—Second Pass

Futuremark 3DMark 11

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Razer Blade - Gaming Performance (Enthusiast) Razer Blade - Battery
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • The Ugly Truth - Saturday, March 17, 2012 - link

    http://www.change.org/petitions/anandtech-forum-en...

    Freedom of expression and freedom to have an online life outside of AT forums reach is all we ask.
  • santiagodraco - Sunday, March 18, 2012 - link

    I'm very dissapointed in one aspect of this review. It seems that you were actually trying to protect the Razer from looking bad by not including the Alienware M17x in the review. You post it in the matrix, at almost 900 less, but don't compare it?

    I'd think your readers would be very interested in seeing the top gaming notebook on the market compared to this new Razer.
  • Rogie - Sunday, March 18, 2012 - link

    Got wrong numbers for Razer's relative battery life for idle and h.264.
    5.35 and 3.28.
    That, or the actual minutes are wrong.
  • KaRRiLLioN - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    I think the form of this thing is sweet. The touchscreen/touchpad stuff is a bit gadgety and I'm no fan of chiclet keyboards, but I might snag one of these things just because it looks so cool.

    At the very least, it'll be better for typing/web browsing than my Dell Latitude 13--and people will probably think I'm a hitman.
  • asdfzxh - Friday, June 14, 2013 - link

    idts

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now